Mine, Rail, and Port Expansion - Case Study Example

Mine, Rail and Port expansion: A Dirty Business or a Boon for the Nation?-Case Study Analysis Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Course Name Date of Submission Mine, Rail and Port expansion: A Dirty Business or a Boon for the Nation?-Case Study Analysis Introduction Coal is one of the major sources of energy in the world. Fortunately, Australia ranks among the leading producers of coal in the world. According to the case, coal is the second largest export earner for Australia, contributing about $43 billion to the Australian economy in 2011/12 financial year. Despite the economic benefits of coal production to the Australian economy, the continued mining of this precious resource has raised serious issues from various stakeholders. The issues raised are particularly linked to the fact that coal exploration, mining and transportation is impacting negatively on the common good. Smith (1995, p. 6) defines common good as any resource that is shared by all members of the society and benefits everyone. Unpolluted natural environment is an example a common good because it is shared by everyone and benefits all (Miller 2004, p. 11). Unfortunately, according to this case, various stakeholders are concerned that Australia’s move to initiate large coal mining projects will affect the natural environment by causing pollution to the natural environment, thereby causing havoc to the people, plants and animals. This paper analyzes the views presented by various stakeholders regarding Australia’s coal mining and distribution projects and proceeds to apply three principles of human flourishing that are relevant to the issue. Finally, the paper will provide recommendations as to how the common good can be achieved in relation to the issue presented in the case. Explanation of the Perspectives of Various Stakeholders Regarding the Issue The local community and the farmers are the key stakeholders who are affected directly by the mining, rail and port expansion. According to the case, the coal mining project and the planned expansion of the rail and port will have a huge impact on the residents of Bowen town that is situated about 25 kilometers on the southeastern part of the port, as well as the Clermont landowners (Horn 2013). However, from the case, it emerges that the local community does not speak with one voice regarding the mining and the expansion of rail and port projects that are going on in their locality. On one hand, the local residents of Bowen town have been in support of the expansion of the port arguing that the planed port expansion will be of great benefit to the town (Horn 2013). In particular, the Bowen residents believe that the project should be allowed to continue as it will create jobs to hundreds of town residents and open up the town for investment, thereby resulting in the growth of the town. In contrast, the residents of Clermont have expressed their opposition to the mining and the planned construction of rail in the area as it will impact negatively on the farmers. Clermont landowners argue that, although the project will benefit the residents economically, it will have serious environmental impacts on the area. In particular, they argue that since the rail will pass through their farm lands, this will loosen their farmland, resulting in erosion and flooding that will cause total destruction on their farmland, which they depend on as a source of their livelihood (Mackay Conservation Group 2014). Additionally, farmers are concerned that the coal mining activity and the subsequent construction of a rail will result in forceful acquisition of their farmland by the government. Further, local farmers are also concerned that coal mining activity will result in massive pollution of underground water, which they depend on not only for mining activities, but also as a source of drinking water. The environmental group is the other major stakeholders who have an interest on the coal mining and the rail and port expansion. The environmental groups are particularly concerned with the pollution effects that the planned mining and rail and port expansion project will have on the environment. For instance, the environmentalists strongly resisted the planned dumping of dredge spoils that would result from the Abbot Point port expansion arguing that it will pollute the environment (Mackay Conservation Group 2014). In fact, the environmentalists pressurized the government to stop its planned dumping of dredge spoils on the land to onshore to minimize the negative environmental impacts that the dredge spoils would have had on the environment. Additionally, even though the Federal Government bored to pressure from the environmentalists regarding the dumping side, environmentalists still feel that the planned port expansion project should be stopped and amicable solution found arguing that the port expansion project will have serious negative impact on the ecosystem. Additionally, environmentalists are concerned that the planned mining project and the expansion of rail and port will have a negative impact on the endangered species that live in the forests, where the mining and the transport activities will be taking place. In particular, the environmentalists feel that the mining and transportation activities destroy the habitat for the Black-throated Finch and even cause the bird’s unfortunate extinction (Mackay Conservation Group 2014). Additionally, the environmentalists are also concerned that the coal mining activities, such as the Carmichael Mine will increase the global warming effect as the mining activities will product large amounts of carbon dioxide estimated at 130 million tons when burned. This will have a profound negative effect on the environment as it will cause a rise in sea levels, increased flooding, prolonged droughts and many other negative effects on the environment. Additionally, the increase in carbon dioxide in the environment will result in increased acidity level of the oceanic waters, thereby killing acquatic life and corals. The third major stakeholder with an interest in the issue presented in the case is the economists. The economists are particularly concerned with the viability of the coal mining project and the resultant expansion of the port and rail to the Australian economy (Solomons and Sturmer 2013). However, according to the case, it becomes clear that the economists are divided in opinion as to the viability and the benefits of the coal mining project to the Australian economy. On one hand, there are economists who believe that the coal mining project that the Australian government intends to commission is neither viable nor beneficial to the Australian economy. In particular, the economists who maintain this view feel that it is a waste of public money investing in coal, whose demand in the world market has fallen significantly in the recent past because of its pollution effect on the environment (Solomons and Sturmer 2013). The economists argue that the world is fast moving towards green energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear energy. As such, they feel that the coal that the Australian government intends to produce in large quantity will not have a market in the near future, thereby making the entire project economically unviable. Additionally, the economists have also noted that the planned coal mining project should be abandoned because it is not only costly, but also because the planned development of Galilee Basin will cause oversupply of coal in Australia, thereby pushing the prices down, accordingly impacting negatively on the country’s coal industry (Solomons and Sturmer 2013). Other economists also suggest that it is not right for Australia’s economy to depend on coal as this might weaken the country’s economy. Additionally, some economists feel that coal mining projects, such as the Carmichael Mine do not benefit the country because the earnings from such mines do not benefit Aussies (Mccarthy 2014). As such, they should be abandoned as they would not last in the long term. In contrast, some economists believe that investing in the coal industry is a good move by the Australian government since it will benefit the economy in a big way. These economists believe that the coal mining and the construction of rail and port will generate huge export earnings to the country and create jobs to hundreds of Aussies, thereby stimulating economic growth and development. Application of the Principles of Flourishing to the Perspectives Above Human flourishing is a term that has its roots in the ancient times. The concept of human flourishing involves the correct use of an individual’s potentials, such as abilities, skills and talents in pursuit of personal goals and objectives (Paul, Miller and Paul 1999, p. 32). Ethically, an action is considered good if it flourishes the individual performing it. As regards the issue presented in the case, there are quite a number of principles of human flourishing that applies to the perspectives presented by the three stakeholders. The three principle of human flourishing that are applicable to the stakeholder’s perspectives in the case include freedom and responsibility, wealth creation, and all human beings are naturally social (Richards 2013). The principle of freedom and social responsibility hold that, although human beings are free to do as they wish, they must also be responsible for their actions (Paul, Miller and Paul 1999, p. 37). This implies that people must account for their actions for the benefit of those impacted by their actions. Accordingly, this principle of human flourishing applies to the perspective of the local community and farmers in the sense that, as much as the project that the Australian government intends to initiate might be of benefit to the Bowen residents, the government must demonstrate a sense of responsibility to ensure that the rights of farmers are not violated (Pimlott 2013, p. 84). This is because the Clermont landowners are concerned that the coal mining activities and the construction of the rail and port mind damage their farmland, thereby denying them their source of livelihood. Therefore, as much as the government has the freedom to initiate projects, which it believes could benefit the local population; it must demonstrate responsibility by minimizing the negative impacts that such projects might have on the population. This local community and farmers’ perspective support the common good because it advocates for the protection of the environment for the good or every farmer and the local community. The second principle holds that human beings are naturally social. This implies that no single human being is born in isolation; rather all human beings need the support of others in order to live (Paul, Miller and Paul 1999, p. 42). As such, every individual, including the government must contribute to life in society. This principle is reflected in the environmentalists’ perspectives as they hold that the mining projects and the rail and port construction should be ceased since they would impact negatively on the environment. According to the environmentalists, the government should reconsider its position on the projects and ensure that the environment is protected for the benefit of the entire society. In fact, the environmentalists expressed concerns that implementing the mining and transport projects will result in massive emission of carbon dioxide that will pollute the air, thereby causing global warming. As such, the government ought to contribute to the well-being of the society by abandoning the projects or ensuring responsible disposal of waste. The environmentalists supports the concept of common good since the environmentalists are advocating for the conservation of the natural environment to ensure that the society enjoy fresh air, water and other natural resources by ensuring that the environment is not polluted (Miller 2004, p. 18). The third principle that applies to the issue presented in the case is the principle of wealth creation. The principle of wealth creation holds that human being is free to create wealth. This is in line with the views held by the economists. Accordingly to the case, some economists suggested that the Australian government should implement the planned coal mining project and the expansion of rail and port as they believe that the projects will help create jobs for the Aussies, thereby resulting in the creation of wealth. Additionally, the economists who help the view argued that the coal mining will produce million tons of coal that will be exported to foreign countries to help create wealth for the nation. However, other economics expressed concerns regarding the amount of wealth that the coal mines will create arguing that the project is not viable since the world is fast moving towards cleaner energy. The economists perspectives supports the common good because both perspectives held by different economists are advocating for the good of the entire Australian people. Conclusion The concept of common good has attracted a large debate in the recent past. This is attributed to the occurrences of many social, political, economic and environmental ills in the society. However, from the discussion, it emerges that every individual has a responsibility to ensure that common good is realized. Common good involves undertaking activities that benefits everyone in the society. Common characteristics of common good include respect for human dignity, social well-being or society and peace, security and stability of just order (Lutz and Mimbi 2014, p. 64). Because common good is for the benefit of the entire society, there are certain actions that the stakeholders in this case can undertake to promote common good. The local community and the farmers can promote common good in relation to the issue by allowing the informing the government and the company involved in the mining and construction of rail and port to ensure that every step is taken to ensure that no damage is caused to the local’s farmland. The environmentalists, however, can promote public good by advising the Federal Government to abandon its planned exploration of mining of coal, which is source of greenhouse gas and instead harness cleaner sources of energy, such as solar, wind, geothermal and nuclear power. Advising the government to harness cleaner energy will ensure that the natural air is protected from population, thus promoting common good. Economists can also promote common good by advising the government on the alternative projects that they believe can be viable enough and generate wealth for the country for the benefit of the entire Australians. The society as a whole can also promote common good by participating in environmental conservation initiatives, such as planting trees, avoiding deforestation, and utilizing cleaner energy instead of coal and other fossil fuels. These initiatives by different stakeholders will help in the realization of the common good by ensuring total environmental protection for the benefit of the society as a whole. References Horn, A 2013, Bowen residents plead for Abbot Point coal terminal expansion, ABC News, 25 July, viewed 30 June 2015 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-25/bowen-residents-plead-for-abbot-point-coal-terminal-expansion/4842944?§ion=news Lutz, D., & Mimbi, P 2014, Shareholder value and the common good. LawAfrica Publishing Ltd, New York. Mackay Conservation Group 2014, Abbot Point - a disaster in the making, viewed 30 June 2015 http://www.mackayconservationgroup.org.au/abbot_point_a_disaster_in_the_making Mccarthy, J 2014, India’s Adani gets environmental green light to develop massive Queensland coal mine. Courier Mail, 28 July, viewed 30 June 2015 http://www.couriermail.com.au/business/indias-adani-gets-environmental-green-light-to-develop-massive-queensland-coal-mine/story-fnihsps3-1227004943439 Miller, P. N 2004, Defining the common good: Empire, religion and philosophy in eighteenth-century Britain. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Paul, E. F., Miller, F. D., & Paul, J 1999, Human flourishing: Volume 16, part 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Pimlott, N 2013, Human flourishing and the common good: The intention and the shape of faith-based youth work in the big society. Staffordshire University, London. Richards, J. W 2013, What principles are important for human flourishing? 21 March, viewed 30 June 2015 http://blog.tifwe.org/principles-important-for-flourishing/ Smith, M. A 1995, Human dignity and the common good in the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition. Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston, NY. Solomons, M., & Sturmer, J 2013, Greenpeace questions viability of Indian company to develop huge Queensland coal deposits. ABC News 26 Nov., viewed 30 June 2015 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-26/greenpeace-questions-viability-of-developing-huge-qld-mine/5116156 Read More